Gene Robinson and the Liberal Theological Cancer
David posted on his blog about V. Gene Robinson, the new gay Episcopal bishop. In his post, David says, “I think the church should see him for who he is and not what he does afterall, if God didn't want him in this position, it would have never happened.” Well, I started responding to the post on his blog, but as often happens, my comment grew so long I thought I ought to post it here instead. You can find it below.
Could God really want this to happen? There are many things that are happening in the church (and always have been) that God clearly wouldn't want (indulgences, rejection of Jesus' resurrection, and many others). The Episcopal Church has been rejecting many “orthodox” beliefs for years now. This is just the icing on the cake, really.
That doesn't mean God isn't in control anymore. However, God doesn't prevent evil from happening in the world, and I believe this is a case of evil occurring. It also doesn't mean God can't use it to His glory at some point, but I can't even begin to speculate how that might happen - perhaps by splitting the denomination, thus keeping the “orthodox” minority separate from the sinking ship of the neo-Christian majority.
The problem I see with the bishop is not that he is committing the sin of being actively homosexual, but that he refuses to see that it is a sin and try to stop. We all sin, but a problem arises when I say “all that stuff in the Bible that literally says such and such is a sin doesn't really mean that — it isn't a sin and I want to encourage others to do as I do.”
Biblically speaking, the bishop should be given the choice to stop committing this sin or be defrocked. Why? A bishop or any other leader all the way down to the pastors and elders are role models for the church — thus they should not willingly participate in continuous blatant sin.
Consider this: Let's say I'm a big liar that lies about everything (I'm not, no, really!). If this problem is brought to my attention, I should seek to stop lying. If I slip every once in awhile, that's one thing. However, if I refuse to even try to stop, that's entirely another. Either way, I'm not really ready for a leadership position until I stop and repent of that sin.
Point: I have nothing against a homosexual bishop. I have a problem against an actively homosexual bishop. If the bishop renounced this activity, he would be a lot better fitted for the job, in my opinion.
I would also note that he has added insult to injury. Not only is he actively homosexual, but also he divorced his wife and left his children so that he could live with his homosexual partner. He has no problem with any of this. Thus he is saying that (1) it wasn't a sin to divorce without a good reason, (2) it wasn't a sin to engage in sexual activity of any orientation outside of marriage and (3) it wasn't a sin to engage in homosexual activity.
It is this attitude of refusing to repent from these sins that disturbs me. Worse, since he wants to indoctrinate others to do the same, the sin he continues in will spread to others in the church.
And homosexuality is just the beginning. Until just days before his election earlier this year, a youth outreach organization he helps to run also promoted other sickening activities such as bestiality on their web site.
So I don't reject him as a bishop for being sinful (we all are). I reject him as a bishop for refusing to admit to his sin, refusing to stop encouraging others to do the same sin, and refusing to repent of his sin.
The dangerous ideology that he (and those like him) promotes is like a slow cancer on a church. It keeps growing and growing. Many members at the local level may ignore this and figure things are still mostly ok. However, I've seen this before: many in the UCC felt the same way that many in the Episcopal church undoubtedly feel now. The only difference is time. To avoid the eventual destruction of the entire Anglican Communion, the other Anglican churches around the world should sever fellowship with the Episcopal church before its ideology spreads to them. Promoting the creation of a new American Anglican church is the best way, and perhaps the only way, to deal with this and other problems within the Episcopal Church.
Join the Conversation
RE: Gene Robinson and the Liberal Theological Cancer
Nothing profound, just the usual caveat: no one on the other side of this debate will allow you to differentiate between acceptance and approval. Nothing new, of course. New Testament era Christians in Greece faced persecution in part for their rejection of Greek homosexuality, and for similar moral reservations by Rome.
RE: Gene Robinson and the Liberal Theological Cancer
Very well said Tim.
What do you think will happen if the church does split over this matter? I wonder if it will make things harder on the church. This will be a very interesting thing to watch and see what happens. Like I’ve always heard “Experience is your best teacher” and I think this is going to be a very long reformation process.
RE: Gene Robinson and the Liberal Theological Cancer
Gosh the whole OT is filled with things that God didn’t want that Israel went ahead and did…
God used them in his plan, but it doesn’t mean approval. Often these things that seemed good at the time, eventually lead to repentance, and a feeling of ‘Oh, shit, we pissed of the man…’ to coin a phrase.
Sooner or later Robinson and those that prop up this Spongian agenda will end up confessing. ‘The Lord is just in what he does.’